Does this thread actually contain any bitcoin specific information at all any more? Apart from a half-hearted CCMF here and there, the off-topic discussions seem to have increased by about 10000%. I dare even say that the only thing that has a larger gain percentage-wise over time thant bitcoin itself, is the amount of off-topic discussion in this thread. But I even now predict that off-topic discussions are a bubble. They will have a peak, and then crash towards 0 !!!! So better stop it now, before it's too late!  Earlier in the week, I responded to one of the posts about the Mt Gox hacked information, and I said that I could NOT figure out the data b/c dates of the data were NOT contained therein. MY POST WAS REMOVED b/c it was supposedly off topic. |
|
|
|
Overall, I think it's much cheaper and more permanently effective to just hunt down miners and kill them until you can easily do a 51% attack.
Why is it that the easy/direct solution to so many problems is to kill people?
bc you are a PSYCHO |
|
|
|
I like this voting stats  We can clearly see our community are rather optimists  700$ will come soon! ♥ BTCI voted yes in part b/c the question is so vague.. will BTC reach $700 "soon?" "Soon" can be widely interpreted... end of the day or within the next six months. ... I think it would have better to specify when that "soon" is, which may change some responses to no. |
|
|
|
 Billyjoeallen and JayJuanGee keep powering the thread along!!no end in sightThat animation and caption is hilarious!!!! |
|
|
|
Detroit car designs suck because all the smart engineers moved to Silicone Valley. German engineers didn't have that option. I wouldn't use Germany as a shining example of a worker's paradise if I were you. It's a place where they work year round to bail out Greeks and Italians who take summers off. They gave loans to other countries so that they could buy German cars and other products and now those countries are defaulting. That's not a good business model.
Sure there are going to be some differences between what companies in different places are doing, and the fact remains that the German car companies were strong in spite of unionization, and they are also, engaged in assisting in the bail out of weaker economies. Powerful stuff.
Their is no practical way to stop money from influencing politics. It has never been done anywhere, ever. We can only stop the influence OF politics.
So frequently, you are in the practice of making things up and exaggerating facts, so even if this were true, about inability to remove money influence from politics, I would have difficulties believing it. I am NOT going to waste my time to provide you examples in which money can be taken out or regulated from politics. Logically, you have a losing argument to assert such, so emphatically. I see that you like to be stubborn and stick to your facts, whether based in reality or NOT. Capital is mobile and the rich will always flee to places where their property rights are protected.
Couple of points here: 1) Yes, capital is mobile and labor is NOT. Rules have been made in that direction, and it remains a form of exploitation, the way that it plays out. and 2) yes, some of you anti-governmental fanatics like to cite these kinds of examples in order to suggest and to argue that we should just give up and wave our white flags and allow race to the bottom politics in order that companies can bid down labor and regulations... b/c they will just go somewhere else if we do NOT kiss their asses and suck their dicks. That is bullshit and disempowering to suggest that governments and people have no power over wealthy people or over wealthy corporations... again.. you are probably watching too much Fox News to be blurting out these right wing talking points that are pie in the sky and have only a semblance of reality contained therein. They don't like being slaves anymore than you do, and they have better options.
Yeah.. .try to personalize these guys and try to get me and the rest of your audience to relate. Part of the problem with the poor sympathizing with the rich too often is that they think the rich deserve their earnings and they believe that the rich are people like them... b/c some day, these poor may be rich... .. Again, bullshit.... these rich people need to be paying more taxes and contributing.. and they are a major part of the problem about why the poor is bearing so many burdens and fighting for pie crumbs while the rich are running off with the pie... if the rich paid their fair share then the poor would NOT have to bear so much burden.. Communism used to cover almost half the globe and now it's a backwater. This war has been fought and you lost. You never had a chance.
poor guy.. you figure that your back is against the wall and have to again resort to name calling.. I do NOT need to give dignity to your name calling... to try to label people as communists or socialists... They use those labels on Fox.. all the time to try to work their audience into a frenzy.... People can be responsible capitalists... and regulate companies and regulate the rich and tax the rich without being either communist or socialist. So can you learn at some point to stick to discussions of substance rather than engaging in labeling and name calling? I believe that you are capable of such self-restraint, b/c I had seen such in a few of your posts.. maybe in your more calm moments. |
|
|
|
What planet are you living on? GM almost went out of business because the United auto-workers drove up input costs to the point that they could make no profits. Not small profits. NO PROFITS.
You're so blinded by your ideology so you even have to make stuff up. In reality, GM went out of business because they made cars nobody wanted to buy.
(My theory here is that it was because they were too late to prioritize fuel economy, in turn because the US has artificially deflated oil prices.)Their European competitors paid their worker higher wages during the same period and they somehow managed to survive. That does not fit your description at all. Actually, I agree with your pointing out the stupidity and the myopic nature of Billyjoeallen's assertions; however, we cannot really be sure of the problems of GM exactly. Kind of a snow job of a situation. GM pretty much had control of its books, the Union was forced to make concession while NOT being allowed to see the books, and the government intervened to bail out GM and to cause workers to take large ass concessions in order to save the company. Surely, some government officials or government trustees may have found out financial circumstance of GM, but the public did NOT find out these matters. IT may be correct that GM was NOT making competitive cars, but also there are a large number of other problems in the USA and maybe even other ways that GM may have been spending and or siphoning off money (quite separate from the expenses of labor - take CEO pay for one thing). |
|
|
|
You have too many presumptions in your descriptions of events... and you are talking gobbledy gook. First you praise and generalize about capitalists and then you suggest that the solution is to take away regulation. That is all bullshit. The problems that we have been having in recent times can be attributed too much liberty being given to capitalists and labor and government has been either too weak or too chickenshit to challenge the exploitation being carried out by capitalist. Look at the situation created as recently as since 2008 whereby jobs have been removed to bust unions and to make people unemployed and to reintroduce jobs at fractions of the previous rates. It was already bad before 2008, but got worse b/c capitalists (especially the filthy rich ones - NOT talking about the mom and pop capitalists, here) were given too much freedom and NOT taxed and allowed to remove jobs and capital and NOT to reinvest.
What planet are you living on? GM almost went out of business because the United auto-workers drove up input costs to the point that they could make no profits. Not small profits. NO PROFITS. Hummer and Oldsmobile had to be shut down because they just couldn't compete. Detroit is now a third world hellhole. Nonunion car factories are springing all over the south and the grandsons of the southerners who migrated to Detroit are migrating back. You are not doing the laborers of the world any favors by driving their employers out of business. This has played out the same way in every heavily unionized industry on earth except for government workers. I can guess what your solution will be: force every car maker to unionize. So then cars are too expensive to drive, workers get laid off anyway and we all have to ride the fucking bus to work, if we are lucky enough to have jobs at all. Can you even try to see yourself from our perspective? You appear crazy. First of all, it sounds as if you may have been watching too much Fox news, and you have a very narrow view of the situation (including the auto industry) which causes you to resort to personal attacks, and trying to attempt to assert that you have some kind of superior view of what is going on and that you are part of some enlightened group... Unions are NOT to blame for these supposed troubles that you attempt to describe. For example, Germany is highly unionized, but they did NOT suffer the same troubles as the US in 2008 ish and thereafter, in part b/c of the unionization in Germany had input into the direction of the companies in germany and did NOT allow capitalists to vulturize companies to reduce jobs and wages and to paint some kind of fantasy land scenario that you describe.... about competition and that non-union is best and that we gotta be exploited in order to compete.. BS.... YES we already know your solution for nearly everything seems to be to get rid of government and to blame people, in spite of the fact that the wealthy have been extracting wealth from the people and NOT paying taxes and debilitating government in various ways.... which causes regular and poor people to have to bear more of the burden of what the rich should be contributing. And the politicians have been going along with all of this redistribution of wealth towards the rich... both parties have been going along with it... b/c there is too much money influencing politics and reducing the facilitation of democratic input. nah, now you are just plappering the stuff the lobbyists want you to think. gm and co failed because they didn't adapt to the changing market, not because labor was too expensive. in fact, if they pay their workers a good loan, they will buy new cars instead of used ones and will buy them more often instead of driving them until they are worth only the scrap-metal price.
look at countries with real worker unions, eg. germany. didn't got the notion that they are completely inable to deal on an international scale and compete in both, prices and quality.
EXACTLY..... |
|
|
|
So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can. How would the network defend itself from that attack?
To stop legitimate transactions, they have to be willing to pay more in fees than the legitimate transaction senders. If they are willing to pay more, there isn't much we can do but wait for them to run out of coins. The harm to the network would be less than the cost to the spammers. It would be like fighting you by punching your fist with my face. Great Analogy.... !!!! Even though you do NOT know about politics and the role of government in society, you certainly know about the bitcoin network.  So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can. How would the network defend itself from that attack?
I am guessing, but I thought that the network just processes transactions in the order received, and if there is a fee attached, then those transactions are processed first. Billions is a lot... and I suppose that the problem could be made worse by creating some repetition of the transactions - after the first ones are processed, they are put back into the cue. If there are so many transactions that the network is overwhelmed... the network may go down for a period of time. and then maybe a fork in the code to restart? YES>... I am continuing to guess. You know you have an anti-fragile system when the worst thing your enemies can do is throw money at you. Another good point!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. ..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work. I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work. We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community. In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations. People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers. Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything.. Capitalists are savers. that's how they get capital. They should get rewards for delayed gratification and risk-taking. If they judge wrong and the market (which is society) doesn't value their goods or services at a price they can sustainably charge, then they lose money no matter how hard they worked. Entrepreneurs only get paid for results, not effort. They only get paid when they contribute. They are heroes. Now in our modern system, entrepreneurs may not be savers. They may just have access to credit for arbitrary reasons. They may use the political system to shield themselves from competition. This is a total distortion of the free market and is not capitalism. You socialists like to use the political system to exploit capitalists, but that is not a better outcome. Consumers (and we are all consumers) get harmed because businesses must either charge higher prices to offset higher input costs or go out of business. The only way to prevent either group from harming or exploiting the other is to remove the political factor and take the gun out of the room. When anything becomes mandatory or banned, somebody loses. When exchange of labor, money, goods or services is voluntary, both parties win. If they didn't, there would be no exchange. You have too many presumptions in your descriptions of events... and you are talking gobbledy gook. First you praise and generalize about capitalists and then you suggest that the solution is to take away regulation. That is all bullshit. The problems that we have been having in recent times can be attributed too much liberty being given to capitalists and labor and government has been either too weak or too chickenshit to challenge the exploitation being carried out by capitalist. Look at the situation created as recently as since 2008 whereby jobs have been removed to bust unions and to make people unemployed and to reintroduce jobs at fractions of the previous rates. It was already bad before 2008, but got worse b/c capitalists (especially the filthy rich ones - NOT talking about the mom and pop capitalists, here) were given too much freedom and NOT taxed and allowed to remove jobs and capital and NOT to reinvest. |
|
|
|
So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can. How would the network defend itself from that attack?
I am guessing, but I thought that the network just processes transactions in the order received, and if there is a fee attached, then those transactions are processed first. Billions is a lot... and I suppose that the problem could be made worse by creating some repetition of the transactions - after the first ones are processed, they are put back into the cue. If there are so many transactions that the network is overwhelmed... the network may go down for a period of time. and then maybe a fork in the code to restart? YES>... I am continuing to guess. |
|
|
|
..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.
Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person. Very Funny.... and witty, Billyjoeallen... even though you are missing the point about how the capitalist is able to take all the surplus value from the increased benefits and to put them into his pocket. Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.
and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....
Brilliant point. Very reality based. Not really. Market, by definition, is based on voluntary exchange. If you broad it's definition to include involuntary exchanges, it will include all human activity and therefore will lose any useful meaning. What you can say about "thing" if everything is a "thing"? Seems as if you are attempting to define some world that does NOT exist if you are suggesting that all market exchanges are voluntary. In the real world, actions and reactions of people fall into a broad array of categories, and these kinds of interactions need to be accounted for when we are attempting to organize a society. From my understanding, most people would prefer NOT to live in a society in which they fear for their lives b/c they are walking down the street wearing a $100 watch. |
|
|
|
if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. ..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work. I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work. We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community. In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations. People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers. Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything.. |
|
|
|
Not sure what this conversation has to do with Bitcoin Bid Walls, but it sure is damn interesting.
It seems that this particular quasi-side track began with comments about Mt. Gox, and thereby accusing and alleging that Mt. Gox had been engaged in thievery and/or fraud. Thereafter, the comment that thievery is the same no matter who is taking the money, and another suggestion that government taxation was the same as thievery... The conversation devolved from there into various assertions about the role of government. Actually, nearly any conversation can devolve comparing and contrasting visions concerning the role of government and inspire the setting forth ideas about the past, present and future. |
|
|
|
insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak..  They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel. Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders. Yes you're probably right. But a centralized bitcoin clone kind of defeats the purpose. Who will mine? JPMorgan? The public? A "trusted" central banker type entity? What if they need to change the rules, will they just hard fork it forcing everyone along? Sounds like a total disaster in the making. I think that those are the very factors that various centralized clones are going to decide, implement and screw up b/c they are NOT going to want to give up control, and then in the end, their failure to give up control is likely going to cause lack of confidence in investing in them in the long term. We will have to see how these imitators play out, but I would venture to bet that they are going to screw up in adequately answering the questions that you outlined. Accordingly, bitcoin or anything that is decentralized like bitcoin is going to inspire the most confidence from future investors. |
|
|
|
insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak.. They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel. Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders. |
|
|
|
I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.
Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?
Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.
Oh, I'm fairly happy to take things piecemeal. If things don't appear to be working, back off and adjust approach. Obviously, I believe things would not tend to end up that way (though government action has created a huge underclass that would have to be accounted for) but I'm not one for big schemes that have to be implemented in one fell swoop (just look at Obamacare for how that kind of thing goes). Basically I see it like a big game of Jenga. There are some pieces which can be taken easily and others which require the removal of other pieces before they can be taken without collapsing the whole tower. Fortunately, almost every step that is taken to improve freedom should make the next one easier. Okay, so you're willing to take things piece-meal. Great, but you didn't provide any solution to the problem. Pretend you're taking things piece-meal, and this information has just come up. I'm personally not the type who is comfortable with "crossing that bridge when you come to it." For that matter, what if there are no solutions to the problems that come up? What if it turns out that, for most, your idea is, in fact, a dismal failure? Or what if it's not even possible, for example forms of government start popping up because that's what people want. What if all these small governments start warring with each other? How do we set up an army to fight off an invasion from a country who doesn't share our approach? All of these are questions that need to be addressed before you take the leap. I'm still lacking answers on the whole "what if I decide to get a large crew together to violently take your shit" argument I presented earlier, as well. That's a general statement to all who agree with you, not specifically directed at you. You can say all you want "it won't happen," but it will. There will always be monsters in this world who will take full advantage of whatever situation they are put in. It's just a question of how widespread it will be. I have a lot of questions for libertarians that I want answered. I've been asking them for years. Most of them still haven't been answered. I thought that might change here, but I'm starting to lose hope and am almost to the point of writing it off as another lost cause. I admire your persistence and your formulations of questions for the libertarians, and you are generally fairly polite in your presentation of various issues and various scenarios, yet it should be clear that trying to get concrete answers from the no government folks is an exercise in futility. It may be that they have an impossible task to describe some future society b/c no one person or group of libertarians are likely to be able to really design some community arrangement that adequately accounts for the variety of stakeholders (without involving some of the various stakeholders in the process).... which frequently causes the libertarians to speculate or to propose fairly specific plans that in fact have NOT been thought through very well. |
|
|
|
If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education... to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such.
You do appear to have a first grader's understanding of the topic at hand. Government robbers are a subset of the larger class of robbers, which includes private sector robbers. Grizzly bears and dogs are both mammals. The State and bandits are both robbers. They are different, but not in the ways that qualify them as mammals and robbers respectively. So, why don't you answer the question then? Are you going to leave your 1 year old with a dog or with a grizzly bear for safe keeping? Neither, obviously. Robbers are to be avoided, whatever their other characteristics. Thanks for your cooperation...   |
|
|
|
If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education... to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such.
You do appear to have a first grader's understanding of the topic at hand. Government robbers are a subset of the larger class of robbers, which includes private sector robbers. Grizzly bears and dogs are both mammals. The State and bandits are both robbers. They are different, but not in the ways that qualify them as mammals and robbers respectively. So, why don't you answer the question then? Are you going to leave your 1 year old with a dog or with a grizzly bear for safe keeping? |
|
|
|
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?
From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left? I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses. If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine private commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties who don't care about regulation, they will have failed succeeded in their goal. FTFY Chinese corrupted officers will push Bitcoin price up 1000 times http://www.bit-sky.com/index.php/english/370-chinese-corrupted-officers-will-push-bitcoin-price-up-1000-timesGOOD NEWS!!! Thanks for that contribution!!!. John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.
Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something? We may still cite John Steward Mill and others even though the ideas have been around a while, and maybe there was NO reference to John Steward Mill in the original post. I do believe that some things that were said in the 1800s may NOT apply very well in the modern world due to population growth and technological applications that may NOT fit very well into some of the current paradigms. I was quite a fan of JS Mill during some parts of my life, but in recent times, I have been giving more weight to concerns and needs of community b/c I am of the opinion that some of the JS Mill thinking may NOT apply very well to some social responsibility concepts... there needs to be some balance.. ... yet I am NOT in any position to assert exactly where that balance line should be drawn.. that would be a product of the community, ultimately.. and surely I would think that any society would like to have balances that allow for personal liberty within a community framework, if possible. JayJuan, check out this video. It pretty much sums things up. http://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7IThe video portrays general libertarian principles, and my assertion remains that libertarianism can provide a partial framework for consideration, but it does NOT provide all of the answers, when it comes down to actual application, especially when some people may confuse basic concepts... such as creating some version of voluntary consent that the community has to beg for a guy to pay taxes or some ridiculous conception like that. Ultimately there are theories about social consent and the social contract, and I am NOT opposed to those theories being applicable guides, so long as they are NOT perverted into something that makes little to no sense when people start spouting various anti-government rhetoric. |
|
|
|
I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything,.
There is a world of difference between not wanting to pay and not wanting to be forced to pay. Sounds like a distinction without a difference, and actually, you seem to be over-emphasizing the "force" aspect, just as one of the people on your team, I believe it may have been Billyjoeallen, asserted that I am failing/refusing to see the gun. So in that regard, guys on your team seem to be emphasizing the gun, and I don't think the gun is as important as the weight that you are giving to it... In my thinking the gun is only important in your state of mind and your consideration of the matter.... And, it seems to me that guys on your team seem to overfocus on the gun b/c guys on your team are so hostile to paying into the community that you guys are truly of the belief that you are being forced and you are feeling sorry for yourselves b/c you want to be "free" from community whatever the fuck that is... detached from society.. live on your own microcosm... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
